Report

The effect of partisanship and political advertising on close family ties

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  01 Jun 2018:
Vol. 360, Issue 6392, pp. 1020-1024
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaq1433
  • Fig. 1 Sampling and imputation validation.

    (A) Results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election by precinct (excludes unpopulated census blocks). (B) Home locations of smartphone users in the 2016 sample. (C) Correlation between actual two-party vote share by state and the District of Columbia (DC) (x axis) and predicted vote share (y axis) using each smartphone user’s home precinct. Nationally, this predicts a 0.516 Clinton vote share, compared to an actual vote share of 0.511. Highlighted are the two most Democratic-leaning states (California and Massachusetts) and two most Republican-leaning states (Wyoming and West Virginia), as well as the states with the largest prediction error.

  • Table 1 Effect of political mismatch on Thanksgiving dinner duration.

    Each regression (column) estimates the effect of voting disagreement on 2016 Thanksgiving dinner duration. All results use linear regressions with fixed effects controlling for an individual’s home location–cross–Thanksgiving destination. Stepwise regressions control for progressively finer pairs, culminating in a five-digit geohash, a square grid about 3 miles by 3 miles in size. The mean duration of Thanksgiving dinner was 257 min (SD = 162 min). The average probability of voting mismatch was 0.44 (SD = 0.10). Standard errors are reported in parentheses and clustered at the precinct-cross-precinct level. R2, coefficient of determination. ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01.

    Independent variable1234
    Dependent variable: Duration of Thanksgiving dinner (min)
    Probability of political mismatch–21.58***–38.04***–45.23**–56.26**
    (2.226)(2.952)(8.696)(14.55)
    Observations642,962642,962642,962642,962
    R20.00030.06600.4580.661
    Fixed effectsNoneCounty pairsZIP code pairsGeohash-5 pairs
    Number of fixed-effects groups035,507302,716414,950
  • Table 2 Asymmetric effects of political mismatch.

    Each regression (column) estimates the effect of voting disagreement between travelers and hosts [DPR traveler to RPR host (DPR→RPR) and RPR traveler to DPR host (RPR→DPR)] on 2016 Thanksgiving dinner duration. The F-test P value tests for equality between coefficients, to test for an asymmetric mismatch effect. The average probability of DPRs attending a RPR-hosted dinner and vice versa was 0.221 and 0.215, respectively (for both, SD = 0.10). Standard errors are reported in parentheses and clustered at the precinct-cross-precinct level. ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05.

    Independent variable1234
    Dependent variable: Duration of Thanksgiving dinner (min)
    Probability DPR→RPR–5.60*–23.44***–30.16**–44.53**
    (2.454)(3.207)(9.358)(15.73)
    Probability RPR→DPR–38.74***–53.47***–60.23***–69.20***
    (2.555)(3.314)(9.455)(16.14)
    F-test (RPR→DPR ≠ DPR→RPR)0.00010.00010.00010.0572
    Observations642,962642,962642,962642,962
    R20.00030.06620.4580.661
    Fixed effectsNoneCounty pairsZIP code pairsGeohash-5 pairs
    Number of fixed-effects groups035,507302,716414,950
  • Table 3 Political advertising heightens partisan effects.

    Each regression (column) estimates the effect of voting disagreement between travelers and hosts on 2016 Thanksgiving dinner duration. The second and fourth regressions explore whether political advertising heightens these effects. Media markets in swing states like Florida saw more than 26,000 ads in 2016. Standard errors are reported in parentheses and clustered at the precinct-cross-precinct level. A blank cell indicates that the variable was not included in this regression. ***P < 0.001; *P < 0.05.

    Independent variable1234
    Dependent variable: Duration of Thanksgiving dinner (min)
    Probability of political mismatch–21.58***–14.40***
    (2.226)(2.588)
    Probability DPR→RPR–5.604*4.117
    (2.454)(2.879)
    Probability RPR→DPR–38.74***–33.68***
    (2.555)(2.978)
    Number of political ads
    (1000 ads per market)
    1.334***1.349***
    (0.185)(0.185)
    Probability of political mismatch
    times number of political ads
    –2.645***
    (0.393)
    Probability DPR→RPR times number of political ads–3.237***
    (0.417)
    Probability RPR→DPR times number of political ads–2.122***
    (0.439)
    Observations642,962642,962642,962642,962
    R20.00030.00040.00030.0004

Supplementary Materials

  • The effect of partisanship and political advertising on close family ties

    M. Keith Chen and Ryne Rohla

    Materials/Methods, Supplementary Text, Tables, Figures, and/or References

    Download Supplement
    • Fig. S1
    • Tables S1 to S4
    • References 

Stay Connected to Science

Navigate This Article